Tenzin1 wrote:Radiocarbon date results for Zhang Zhung say the culture existed at least as early as 1000 BCE, per recent studies by Belleza.

Pots are not people. For example, would we expect to find Celts today living along the Danube?

Evidence is that there was a culture in Zhang Zhang and that is always done with a carbon test. And by pots one can see how the people did live etc. These are sure cultural evidences and we do speak here about the Zhang Zhung culture which is anyway the oldest Tibetan culture. They have had also a script there and there was a translation from this literature about 800.Here Zhang Zhung Dzogchen Master , Gyerpung Nangzer Lodpo got the permission from Tapiritsa to write the ZZ Dzogchen teachings on paper. This was at the time of the cruel persecutions in Tibet caused by king Trisong Deutsen so it was the highest time for termas.Anyway before 800 we got also Bon Dzogchen teachings but that was done in the Kagyud style (Oral)

In any case, this may be why some say that Bon didn't exist before the 11th Century. It depends on how one defines Bon.

What they mean is that we do not have a single Bon text which can be dated earlier that the 11th century.

We must bear in mind that because of the Bon persecution many texts are hidden in the form of Termas. Besides that we know the mind to mind teachings and the Kagyud teachings. In the Dzogchen tradition is it also wellknown that 1 Master has only 1 follower.But sure, when the wind of persecution went down there was free space to rewrite it down.Further are there translations from Zhang Zhung to Tibetan and these are some earlier than the 11th centuryN

Best wishesKY

THOUGH A MAN BE LEARNEDIF HE DOES NOT APPLY HIS KNOWLEDGEHE RESEMBLES THE BLIND MANWHO WITH A LAMP IN THE HAND CANNOT SEE THE ROAD

Namdrol wrote:Pots are not people. For example, would we expect to find Celts today living along the Danube?

?! Non-sequitur. We do find the descendants of Celts in the Danube region today, and that is determined by genetic studies, but what does that have to do with dating Zhang Zhung culture? Carbon-dating pots is one way archeology is done. Stay tuned for further developments.

Namdrol wrote:Pots are not people. For example, would we expect to find Celts today living along the Danube?

?! Non-sequitur. We do find the descendants of Celts in the Danube region today, and that is determined by genetic studies, but what does that have to do with dating Zhang Zhung culture? Carbon-dating pots is one way archeology is done. Stay tuned for further developments.

Thanks for the link, k-y.

My statement is a common truism in archaeology i.e. plastic culture does not allow one to extrapolate very much about the people who made this or that thing.

There are no Celts in the Danube today, that is the point. Likewise, people have this idea that somehow the key to early Tibetan history is locked away in Zhang Zhung archaeology -- but they are looking in the wrong place. The Tibetan people moved into the Tibetan plateau from the lower valleys of the east. This is clearly recorded in Tibetan migration legends of the four major clans.

Namdrol wrote:My statement is a common truism in archaeology i.e. plastic culture does not allow one to extrapolate very much about the people who made this or that thing.

Patience, patience. They're working on it. The field of Zhang Zhung archaeology is still in its infancy.

Namdrol wrote:There are no Celts in the Danube today, that is the point. Likewise, people have this idea that somehow the key to early Tibetan history is locked away in Zhang Zhung archaeology -- but they are looking in the wrong place. The Tibetan people moved into the Tibetan plateau from the lower valleys of the east. This is clearly recorded in Tibetan migration legends of the four major clans. N

Oh. Silly me, I thought they were researching Zhang Zhung for the sake of learning more about Zhang Zhung on its own merits.

The origins of the Tibetan people are much more complex than simply migrations from the east. Current scholarship also postulates a migration from the north or north-east as well. Genetic analysis shows that Tibetan nomads have Altaic ancestry as well as Iranian or Indo-European, while sedentary Tibetans have mainly Sinitic ancestry. And linguistic analysis confirms this north Asian/South Asian ethnic split; the vocabulary is largely Sinitic, while the grammar has Altaic features.

Namdrol wrote:My statement is a common truism in archaeology i.e. plastic culture does not allow one to extrapolate very much about the people who made this or that thing.

Patience, patience. They're working on it. The field of Zhang Zhung archaeology is still in its infancy.

Namdrol wrote:There are no Celts in the Danube today, that is the point. Likewise, people have this idea that somehow the key to early Tibetan history is locked away in Zhang Zhung archaeology -- but they are looking in the wrong place. The Tibetan people moved into the Tibetan plateau from the lower valleys of the east. This is clearly recorded in Tibetan migration legends of the four major clans. N

Oh. Silly me, I thought they were researching Zhang Zhung for the sake of learning more about Zhang Zhung on its own merits.

These days, the motivation for backing research in Zhang Zhung mostly has to do with the ancient origins of Tibetan culture.

The origins of the Tibetan people are much more complex than simply migrations from the east. Current scholarship also postulates a migration from the north or north-east as well. Genetic analysis shows that Tibetan nomads have Altaic ancestry as well as Iranian or Indo-European, while sedentary Tibetans have mainly Sinitic ancestry. And linguistic analysis confirms this north Asian/South Asian ethnic split; the vocabulary is largely Sinitic, while the grammar has Altaic features.

Tibetan Nomads and the people of the Yarlung Dynasty are two distinct peoples, we agree. Tibetan nomads adopted Tibetan language, but in areas where they are stronger, places such as Golog, their language has more variance from standard Tibetan. We also know that people from Kham do not consider themselves "Bod pa", Tibetans.

But this is precisely my point, pots are not people. We are not going to learn very much about the roots of Tibetan culture and so on by looking at Zhang Zhung archaeology. We will probably not even learn very much about Bon.

Bon however is a religion that calls itself "The original pre-Buddhsit religion of Tibet" and therefore, since it sites itself in Zhang Zhung, the motive for doing archaeology in that region is, at this point, inextricably bound up with the question of Bon in Tibetan culture.

caveman wrote:I once asked a Bonpo Tulku about the karma of a nation.He told me at a good example of the karma of a nation is Tibet.When Tibet followed the Bon way it was a strong and powerful nation, feared by its neighbours.They Indian Buddhism came and 1200 years later were is Tibet, GONE!A buddhist Tibet was feared by no one and the bulk of its wars were Sect wars between the Nyingma, Sakya, Karma Kagyu, Drikung Kagyu and finally the Gelupa.He stated that it was the Mongols (foreigners) who decided who would lead Tibet and what its religion would be.A buddhist Tibet fell to the Chinese the Tulku stated because the Tibetan people embraced a foreign teaching.What do you think about the national karma of Tibet and what this Bon Tulku told me.

1. A "nation" is made up of individual people. A "nation" has no "nation-ness" just as a table has no inherent existence. So, you have to define what you mean by a "nation". Is it a language? A geographic location? Or is nationalism a kind of broad generalization, a matter of opinion? For example, China considers Tibet part of its 'nation'. So, I think the idea of a national karma has no basis, except in so far as there being a common belief in it, even if it among various groups of nomadic people.

2.Why is being feared by one's neighbors a desired trait?

3. If Bon followers are immune to bullets and bombs, then they might have been able to resist an invasion by China. Other than that, I don't think the Peoples Liberation Army would have cared if the predominant religion in Tibet was Buddhist, Bon, or Beatlemania. Genghis Khan didn't care either.

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.